FORMER State Minister Bernard Finnigan will not face trial until 2015 — four years after police allegedly found child pornography at his home, the District Court heard today.

Finnigan’s lawyer Michael Abbott, QC, today asked for extra time to argue the “actual or apparent” ages of the child or children in material allegedly found at his client’s home.

He said he wanted to call an expert witness to testify whether the prosecution was able to prove the jury could, beyond reasonable doubt, determine whether the ages were under 14 and therefore an aggravated offence.

Prosecutor Ian Press also today told the court a fresh charge of attempting to obtain access to child pornography had been laid against Finnigan, 41 — a charge which was thrown out by a magistrate during no case submissions in May 2013.

He asked Judge Steven Millsteed to list a tentative trial date when they next meet in court in May.

“I ask, your honour, that whatever happens (at the court date in May) can we have a tentative trial date for a listing next year so we do not have it pushed back even further?” Mr Press said.

Finnigan’s case has already spanned two jurisdictions and multiple twists of fate.

In the Adelaide Magistrates Court, he pleaded not guilty to six aggravated counts of accessing, and taking steps to access, child pornography.

Prosecutors alleged the charges arose from the discovery of material on his home computer in April 2011.

His lawyers went one step further, claiming the case was flawed and should be thrown out.

They argued that, if a child in an image was older than 14 at the time the image was viewed, an accused could not be charged with aggravated offences.

The debate went to the Full Court of the Supreme Court, which overturned an order that Finnigan stand trial — but each of the three presiding judges gave a different reason for doing so.

Their only consensus was to send the matter back to the Magistrates Court for re-hearing — which unexpectedly reactivated the suppression order on Finnigan’s identity.

For two weeks, the media could neither name nor show Finnigan, despite having done so repeatedly for four months.

In February 2013 the state’s Chief Magistrate, Judge Elizabeth Bolton, made a landmark freedom of speech ruling permitting publication of Finnigan’s identity despite his lack of a plea.

Finnigan’s lawyers once again argued the case should be dropped, saying prosecution evidence failed to meet the standards of proof demanded by the State Government’s strengthened child pornography laws.

In May 2013, Magistrate Simon Smart ruled Finnigan had no case to answer on allegations he had taken steps to obtain access to pornographic images of children under the age of 14 years.

He further ruled Finnigan should not face trial on the alternative, lesser offence of taking steps to obtain access to pornography featuring children of any age.

However, Mr Smart ordered Finnigan face the District Court on a single count of having obtained access to pornographic images of children under the age of 14.

If convicted of the offence, Finnigan faces a jail term and loss of his Parliamentary seat.

In June 2013, Finnigan asked the District Court to permanently stay his case — and, if it refused, to hold his trial in the absence of a jury.